laurasdevelopmentbloghttps://laurasdevelopmentblog.wordpress.com
International DevelopmentSun, 18 Feb 2018 05:04:19 +0000enhourly1http://wordpress.com/https://s2.wp.com/i/buttonw-com.pnglaurasdevelopmentbloghttps://laurasdevelopmentblog.wordpress.com
It’s 2045: Did we survive?https://laurasdevelopmentblog.wordpress.com/2015/12/01/its-2045-did-we-survive/
https://laurasdevelopmentblog.wordpress.com/2015/12/01/its-2045-did-we-survive/#respondTue, 01 Dec 2015 16:34:25 +0000http://laurasdevelopmentblog.wordpress.com/?p=116No-one can predict the future but as my first term studying International Development draws to a close we have been asked to do just that. Did we reduce climate change? Do we still have NGOs? What happened to ISIS and the refugee crisis? Are people still ‘Keeping up with the Kardashians’? Who knows?! Here is my optimistic guess as to what the world will look like in 30 years time.

Before I begin let me first congratulate myself on how well I have aged, maybe 48 isn’t so bad after all!

Over the last 30 years we have managed to keep climate change below the 2 degree mark, originally negotiated at Copenhagen in 2009 and re-established at COP21 in 2015, however the lower limit of 1.5 degrees was passed long ago. Most countries experience mass draughts and floods throughout the year encouraging mass migration from smaller tropical islands which have almost been eradicated by sea level rises. One of the most significant changes made to help reduce climate change was the switch from coal to nuclear energy after more funds were put towards developing it. Unlike in the past we now use the depleted uranium from plants so that there is next to no radioactive waste and it is completely renewable (Gates, 2015). Furthermore, investigations into the link between eating meat and climate change also brought about some new answers to the problem. Boer, Schösler and Boersema (2013) claimed that “global livestock production is responsible for around 12% of global greenhouse gas emissions”. It was difficult to initialise a wide spread reduction in meat consumption due to a range of factors including climate change scepticism and meat consumption is still increasing but at a steadier rate than that of 30 years ago. Reminders on food packages as to where the meat comes from as well as the health risks that come with a high animal protein diet help to influence a more vegetarian lifestyle.

With regard to ISIS and the refugee crisis, the violence in the Middle East continued for some time and so did the influx of refugees into Europe. It took many failed airstrikes before the US and the UK sent in troops to defeat the rebels on the ground (Ferguson 2015). The war went on for over a decade. Even now less than 50% of migrants have returned home to Syria and its surrounding countries.

As for development actors we here, in the development sector, have seen quite a big shift in the last couple of decades to a more corporate outlook. For years the impact of major corporations in the development arena was overlooked and often criminalised with prejudices of exploitation, law evasion etc. however their influence is now dominating the development scene. Multinational corporations have helped economic growth, poverty reduction, employment creation and even issues of sustainability as well as helping to develop the food sector thanks to their readily available finance, expertise, technology development and not forgetting their influence over foreign governance (Davis 2012, p.1-3). Since the prospect of corporate investment came to the forefront of aid we have found that good governance has been encouraged and sustained, in most ‘underdeveloped’ countries, as no corporation will invest in a structure less state. However this positive leap is not without its setbacks. It is true that some corporations are investing in the global south for their own gains, cheap labour and pollution tax avoidance are desirable but this is few and far between.

Overall this is not the same world I grew up in. Climate change is slowly becoming less of an uncontrollable threat, new technology is taking over the planet and international corporations are the new sweethearts of development.

]]>https://laurasdevelopmentblog.wordpress.com/2015/12/01/its-2045-did-we-survive/feed/0planet blog 4laurasrandomblogParis-Agreement-AdoptedRepresenting ‘development’: Portrayal or Betrayal?https://laurasdevelopmentblog.wordpress.com/2015/11/13/demographic-portrayal-or-betrayal/
https://laurasdevelopmentblog.wordpress.com/2015/11/13/demographic-portrayal-or-betrayal/#respondFri, 13 Nov 2015 10:11:23 +0000http://laurasdevelopmentblog.wordpress.com/?p=72It is a topic which seems to evoke a lot of anger, opinion and debate, yet my opinion of the representation and misrepresentation of the poor is conflicted between the money it raises and the stereotype it perpetuates. The morality of what is often referred to as ‘poverty porn’, the shocking images fed to us by development actors in order to encourage our ‘moral obligation’ as the ‘rich white westerners’ to give up our cash, is hotly debated by all in the development sector. Who does it really help? Does it do more damage than good? How can we stop it? Drawing on the ideas of Nandita Dogra and John Hutnyk as well as looking at different social media campaigns and articles, I aim to unveil the more harmful effects of this so called ‘poverty porn’.

Figure 1: A very colonial depiction of a ‘helpless’ child

Figure 1 is the perfect example of how charity campaigns perpetuate the idea of white privilege and strip the people whom it is trying to help of their dignity. Whether intentional or not, the museum like box placed around the child feels like an echo of the human zoos that were oh so popular and normalised during the colonial era. In addition the emphasis on ‘we’, the western saviours, and our role in ending their poverty again reinforces the idea of dependency and infantilism, often used in colonial teaching. By infantilising the subject, we, as the target audience, feel sympathy and a sense of moral injustice which in turn causes us to delve into our pockets and give the ‘infant’ their childhood back. There are many ways to infantilise someone, adult or child, it all depends on how you portray them. For example, you can show them naked or starving or you can take a picture looking down at them whilst they stare desperately up into your lens (Dogra 2007, p. 166). All of these ‘tricks of the trade’ help to create a sense of urgency as well as innocence (and money). Whilst years of usage proves that these types of images are effective in raising money they are undignified and somewhat untrue.

Another criticism of this tactic is the way it over simplifies the problem and the solution causing charity and not real change. As Hutnyk (2004, p.81) argues, charity is an “alibi for avoiding the structural redistribution that would not only alleviate but eradicate the poverty”. Poverty porn takes complex issues and makes them understandable to the masses (Roenigk 2007) meaning sustainable development is near impossible as the root cause of the problem is not removed. In most ‘underdeveloped’ countries the main reason for poverty is structural and governmental instability whilst most aid organisations would have us believe it is a lack of money and goods that is causing inequality. “Most North American audiences define poverty by physical suffering and a lack of material resources, while the poor define their condition psychologically and emotionally” (Roenigk 2007). If we really want to help we need to work with the local governments to ensure better equality throughout that region as well as being more honest in adverts about how much “you’re £X a month” actually impacts the lives of the receivers.

[Source: Twitter]

Media campaigns such as #TheAfricaTheMediaNeverShowsYou is one way in which people around the world have been trying to fight this ‘poverty porn’ by showing the more developed and relatable side of everyday life in ‘underdeveloped’ countries. Images of modern university buildings and exotic islands, among others, have been circulating the internet to try and put an end to what the west perceives to be the ‘true’ Africa/ South America/ other non-globalised country. Interestingly, however, in the comments of Tyler Fyfe’s article about the campaign there is a lot of backlash to these ‘anti-poverty porn’ images with many Africans saying that these are still western images of what we believe ‘developed’ looks like and that they still don’t show the ‘real’ story.

When people try to celebrate Africa, they do so by trying to make Africa look globalized. So for example, they show flashy modern buildings in Khartoum or skinny models that conform to western standards of beauty. Or tourist locations. Pathetic. Africa is so much more than this. It’s ancient cultures, it’s mud huts, it’s ecologically sustainable foraging tribes and agrarian practices… these are the pearls of African wisdom that colonialists with their exploitive and ecologically self-destructive cultures can learn from. – Michael Kleider

In order for this to change, charities need to work with the people they are portraying and ask them how they want to be represented. We need to stop using our voices to speak for them and we need to stop reflecting our ideas of ‘development’ onto them.

I am now extremely critical of these propaganda style images due to the single minded ignorance they encourage and the structural change they avoid to seek. In all honesty, although we should, I don’t think we will ever stop the practice of ‘poverty porn’ and simple charity because, even though it is unsustainable, it makes us feel better about ourselves and is undeniably effective at raising money.

Bibliography

-Aid Thoughts (2009) What is ‘poverty porn’ and why does it matter for development? [Online] 1st July. Available from: aidthoughts.org [Accessed: 29/11/15]

]]>https://laurasdevelopmentblog.wordpress.com/2015/11/13/demographic-portrayal-or-betrayal/feed/000140438laurasrandomblogpoverty porn 2pp twitterNGOs: Helping or Hindering Development? Do we still need NGOs?https://laurasdevelopmentblog.wordpress.com/2015/10/31/ngos-helping-or-hindering-development/
https://laurasdevelopmentblog.wordpress.com/2015/10/31/ngos-helping-or-hindering-development/#respondSat, 31 Oct 2015 16:17:04 +0000http://laurasdevelopmentblog.wordpress.com/?p=58“Innovative and grassroots driven organisations with the desire and capacity to pursue participatory and people centred forms of development and to fill gaps left by the failure of states across the developing world in meeting the needs of their poorest citizens” (Banks and Hulme 2012, p.2)

Over the last 40 years the influence and impact of NGOs on world development has grown and transformed from high popularity and success in the 1970’s and 1980’s to over shadowing and criticism in the 1990’s and onwards. This is a brief look into the controversial impact that NGOs nowadays have on the lives of some of the poorest people on the planet and aims to answer the question, do we still need them?

A common complaint of NGOs is the way in which they have depoliticised poverty. Since the 1990’s good governance agenda, the gap in which NGOs were founded has become smaller and the role of NGOs in civil society has been put into question. Where once they were seen as the innovators and “sweethearts of the development sector”, it has now been realised that they only make up one piece of civil society and world development (Banks and Hulme 2012, p.2-9). Originally set up to promote democratic change in society, NGOs have lost “their ability to respond to and take political initiatives” (Joseph 2001, p. 146) rendering them useless in terms of the creation of public spaces where interests come together for the ‘common good’ which, according to Joseph, can only happen in a political arena (Joseph 2001, p. 145-150). Although it is true that NGOs often ignore politics in order to reach their objectives that is what makes them stand out from other official aid organisations and the government. Although all of the above may in fact be true, we mustn’t under estimate the power of NGOs. The current refugee crisis is one of the many examples of their importance in the world. Whilst governments argue over appropriate ‘procedure’ and whose responsibility it is to look after these people, NGOs are on the ground doing all they can with their limited power to welcome the refugees, feed them and look after them after the atrocities they have gone through.

Furthermore, many have criticised NGOs for having lost their core values and as a result they have become less efficient in their efforts to help end poverty. Hailey blames the relationship between aid donors and NGOs for the loss of identity suggesting that donor’s objectives sway NGO decisions. This dependency on donor aid and lack of solid core values has caused a steady loss of aid money to other development organisations. Hailey suggests that NGOs need to redefine their core values in order to make themselves obviously separate from governments and other organisations to allow more funding and to serve the needs of their receiver communities (Hailey 2001, p.163). As well as lack of funding, the presence of donor aid often dictates the areas and programmes of NGOs meaning that they are no longer choosing to help the people who need them the most but instead are basing their target communities on where the donors are funding.

However, NGOs would say they are the most committed to the poorest populations and are the only actors which encourage, almost exclusively, ‘bottom up’ development (Grzybowski 2001, p. 209-217). Grzybowski argues that NGOs are “more committed and militant than efficient” and that without NGOs our concern and knowledge of the refugee and environmental crisis, and their detrimental impacts on all of us, would not be known. Although small in their sector in comparison to the government and other official agencies, they play a vital role in the chain of action. Non-governmental organisations are the creators of a cause which they then promote to the excluded majority to put pressure on these bigger organisations. They do this in three ‘steps’; first they bring to light the issues needing to be addressed, then they create awareness of a widespread problem and finally they mobilise the majority under one banner empowering people to fight for their own rights (Grzybowski 2001, p. 213). Unlike states and official organisations, non-governmental organisations support those fighting against inequality and exclusions which are created by the government. I guess in this context you could say that NGOs are the foundations for change and that without them self-awareness and reliance, which in turn creates ‘bottom up’ sustainability, would diminish.

Overall it feels immoral and somewhat ignorant to say that we no longer need NGOs. It is fair to say that their impact has become secondary to that of the state in terms of efficiency however they are still as valuable an asset as ever to those most in need, like the refugees in Europe. In spite of this, in order to be taken seriously in the development sector and to have a bigger impact, it is imperative that they re-evaluate their core values and become more independent of aid donors and aid donors’ agendas.

– Banks, Nicola with David Hulme (2012) The role of NGOs and civil society in development and poverty reduction,Manchester: Brooks World Poverty Institute

– Grzybowski, C. (2001) We NGOs: a controversial way of being and acting, Eade, D. and Ernst Ligteringen eds. (2001) Debating Development: NGOs and the Future, Development in Practice Reader, Oxford: Oxfam.

]]>https://laurasdevelopmentblog.wordpress.com/2015/10/31/ngos-helping-or-hindering-development/feed/0NGOlaurasrandomblogcalais kitchenDoes anyone actually know what development means?https://laurasdevelopmentblog.wordpress.com/2015/09/22/does-anyone-actually-know-what-development-means/
https://laurasdevelopmentblog.wordpress.com/2015/09/22/does-anyone-actually-know-what-development-means/#respondTue, 22 Sep 2015 14:21:55 +0000http://laurasdevelopmentblog.wordpress.com/?p=6“What does the word ‘development’ mean to you?” I was asked at the beginning of my first International Development lecture. My response was “I think the word development means the creation of freedom; the freedom to water, education, health, opportunity, the freedom to sexuality and to be equally valued in society etc.” However by the end of the lecture I had no idea what development actually means and neither, so it appears, does anyone else! For some, development means money, economic growth and opportunity, for others development means equality, dignity and safety. I both agree and disagree with these two ideas.

Robert Chambers explains development simply as “good change” however he struggles to define the meaning of good, as would anyone, because, much like the word development, it is subjective to circumstance and only the people in need of change know what is good (Chambers 1997, p.1743). The great difficulty for development workers is that what constitutes ‘good change’ is not always obvious as change, no matter how good it appears to be, is not always beneficial. Both Rist and Chambers in their own words suggest that development takes on a different meaning depending on who is using it and where in the world they are (Chambers 1997; Rist 2010). For example, when helping to refurbish a deaf school in Kavule, Uganda, I was perplexed by Sam, the headteacher, who was adamant about having a wash block for the teachers and a furnished ‘library and computer block’ when the children were eating our left overs from the rubbish pile and the kitchen was nothing more than a shack held together by hope and prayers. To myself, an outsider, the kitchen was a priority but Sam insisted that in order to encourage more children and teachers to the school, and therefore more funding, the work we were doing was far more beneficial. Perhaps the reason it is so difficult to define development, or see its effects, is because of the western standard of living which we compare ‘underdeveloped’ countries to.

Rist also takes a unique approach to development even going as far as to say that development actually widens the development gap and that the effects of it are artificial. I mostly disagree with Rist’s pessimistic view of development however as Chambers says, if development assistance hadn’t occurred things would have been far worse than they are now (Chambers 2010). This being said, I did find it interesting how he [Rist] argues that the more developed a country becomes, sadly, the less freedoms there are in society as everything becomes a commodity and loses its authenticity. That’s the price of development (Rist 2010).

Sam, head teacher at Kavule School for the Deaf, Uganda, 2011

Strangely the UN and the DAC appear to have varying ideas about development. According to the UN’s Human Development Report (1996) ‘ Human Development is the end-economic growth a means’ [World Bank] whilst the DAC’s list of ODA recipients suggests that economic growth is the end. In the eyes of the DAC a country is no longer in need of, or entitled to, development assistance once it reaches a middle income status without any regard to the distribution of that wealth within the country or the emotional development of its people. I am answering this question through an anthropological eye and therefore I favour the UN’s explanation of what development means.

In my eyes development is when people start thriving and not just surviving, whether that is economically or personally. I also think the reason it is so difficult to define the meaning of development is because it is a continual thing and no one actually knows what it is to be ‘developed’ because there is no point at which we stop developing. Maybe in the end it is just a word that gives us hope of a better world.